This is the problem with academic business research, which pretty much goes unread by an audience that only has 10 seconds for you to get to your point. Since getting to your point or more specifically marketing your point is a skill that academics rarely possess, the audience moves to those white collar types who become bestowed with street cred by earning a billion or so for General Electric, IBM, or Starbucks. It's sort of like Dr. Phil becoming a genius psychologist because he 'cured' a million of so poor souls on Oprah.
In an article on the state of business journalese in the 'The Economist', the global accrediting agency for business schools recommended that the value of research for the research faculty should be judged not by listing their citations in journals, but by demonstrating their impact on the workaday world. Since journal articles don't have much of an impact, you can get the drift.
Ultimately it is not the validity of academic research that counts in the real world, but its parsimony, readability, and most importantly, usefulness. For business people, usefulness is measured in how an idea translates into procedures that provide an edge in the Darwinian marketplace. Hence, nonsense has the shelf life of a Care Bear in the Cretaceous. Like business research, much of psychology aims to justify itself by making observations that can be used by common folks, where it promptly fails or is ignored. Too bad there is no global accrediting agency for the social sciences as there is for business. It would be good indeed for those of us interested in the business of living.